Machi J, Tateishi T, Oishi AJ, Furumoto NL, Oishi RH, Uchida S, Sigel B. Laparoscopic ultrasonography versus operative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: review of the literature and a comparison with open intraoperative ultrasonography.
J Am Coll Surg 1999;
188:360-7. [PMID:
10195719 DOI:
10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00313-5]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) has been used increasingly over the last several years as a new imaging modality. To define the role of LUS during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, we evaluated LUS by prospectively comparing it with operative cholangiography (OC), by reviewing the literature on LUS, and by retrospectively comparing it with intraoperative ultrasonography performed during open cholecystectomy.
STUDY DESIGN
LUS and OC were compared prospectively in 100 consecutive patients during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The success rate of examination, the time required, the accuracy in diagnosing bile duct calculi, and the delineation of biliary anatomy were evaluated.
RESULTS
The success rate of examination was 95% for LUS and 92% for OC. The main reason for unsatisfactory LUS was incomplete visualization of the distal common bile duct. The time required was 8.2 minutes for LUS and 15.9 minutes for OC (p<0.0001). Nine patients had bile duct calculi. LUS had one false-negative result and OC had two false-positives and one false-negative. The accuracies of LUS and OC were comparable except for a slightly better positive predictive value of LUS (100% versus 77.8%; p>0.1). In a literature review, 12 recent prospective studies comparing LUS and OC and three studies on open intraoperative ultrasonography were reviewed. Twelve studies of LUS with a total of 2,059 patients demonstrated results similar to the present study. The success rate was 88% to 100% for both tests. The time for LUS was approximately 7 minutes, about half of the time needed for OC. Overall, LUS was associated with fewer false-positive results than OC; the positive predictive value and specificity of LUS were better, while the sensitivity and negative predictive value of LUS and OC were comparable. OC detected ductal variations or anomalies more distinctly than LUS. Compared with open intraoperative ultrasonography, LUS had a slightly lower success rate and required a slightly longer time because it was technically more demanding, but the two procedures had a similar accuracy for diagnosing bile duct calculi.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of their different advantages and disadvantages, LUS and OC can be used in a complementary manner. There is a learning curve for LUS because of its technical difficulty. Once learned, however, LUS can be used as the primary screening procedure for bile duct calculi because of its safety, speed, and cost-effectiveness. OC can be used selectively, particularly when ductal anatomic variations or anomalies or bile duct injuries are suspected.
Collapse